Coffman Says He’d Consider Supporting Trump Impeachment

The candidates for Congress in CO-6 gathered for a debate on Tuesday in the “Colorado Decides” series hosted by CBS4 Denver, The Colorado Sun, Colorado Public Television, and radio stations 850 KOA and 630 KHOW.

Incumbent Congressman Mike Coffman (R-Aurora) and Democratic challenger Jason Crow addressed a number of topics in the 30-minute debate, but one topic stood out for Coffman specifically.

At about the 14:15 mark of the debate, CBS4 Denver’s Shaun Boyd asks the candidates about whether or not they would support potential impeachment proceedings against Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh and/or President Trump. Here’s the exchange between CBS4 political reporter Shaun Boyd and Coffman:

BOYD: If Democrats do in fact take control of the House, and they bring impeachment proceedings against Judge Kavanaugh and/or President Trump, would you support that?

COFFMAN: We’ll have to see what the evidence is. I’m just surprised, I think [unintelligible]…the issue of Judge Kavanaugh has been fairly litigated. I’m very disappointed, though. I think the Republicans in the Senate made a mistake by not making that FBI report public, to where the American people can see that prior to the vote. I think that was a mistake. Taking the word of the Senators that in fact there was no additional information there.

We have to wait and see where the Mueller investigation goes, as to whether or not it justifies impeachment proceedings.

BOYD: If it finds collusion, between the Trump administration and Russia, would you support impeachment?

COFFMAN: If it’s a violation of law.

BOYD: You would support impeachment?

COFFMAN: If it’s a violation of law.

BOYD: You would, then, support it. [Pols emphasis]

This is a pretty astonishing answer from Coffman, in part becauseit opens up the question for every other Republican incumbent in America.

12 Community Comments,
Facebook Comments

Of course, we won't know if there is a "violation of the law" until there is an indictment, trial and conviction.

And sitting Presidents can't be indicted. Of, if they are, there will be a long and complicated pre-trial, probably with appeals going all the way to the Supreme Court. The same Supreme Court with Justices who have voted to short-circuit post-election counts because they were worried about not having a decision in time for Inauguration Day for a Republican (though that decision said it wouldn't be a precedent); and a Justice who recently was put on the Court with writing saying a (Republican) President shouldn't be distracted by trials. And that adjudication of pre-trial motions would take awhile for every level to carefully consider and return with an opinion.

And if there is an indictment, there shouldn't be a "special" focus on the case, so it would be put on the calendar like any other trial — which means 3-6 months after the pre-trial motions are done.

Coffman doesn’t know what Coffman agrees with. He would need to check with his minders at EIS on the poll results. Maybe poll the ethnic communities to see thumbs up or down. Short of murder I would not vote for impeachment of the President and that would depend on who the victim was ;>)

John wrote: "and sitting presidents can't be indicted……" Has that ever been adjudicated at the federal level? Trump is facing several non-federal court situations in New York state; one of which is a civil matter. I've read that a federal policy regarding indictment of a sitting president doesn't necessarily apply to a state.